CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated
decision on what he called a "complex and difficult issue," President Bush
on Thursday night said he would allow federal funding of research using
existing stem cell lines.

Bush said there are about 60 existing
stem cell lines in various research facilities -- cell lines that have
already been derived from human embryos.

The president stopped short of allowing
federal funding for research using stem cells derived from frozen embryos,
about 100,000 of which exist at fertility labs across the country.

"I have made this decision with great
care, and I pray that it is the right one," Bush said in a nationally televised
address from his ranch here, where he is on a monthlong working vacation.

Scientists and advocacy groups view
embryonic stem cell research as perhaps the best hope for finding cures
for debilitating diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Other groups, such as anti-abortion
activists, consider stem cell research the taking of a human life because
embryos must be destroyed to harvest the stem cells.

Some of Bush's closest advisers --
including Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson -- had urged
him to allow broader funding of the controversial science.

One compromise that Bush reportedly
had been considering would have allowed the funding of research using stem
cells from the excess embryos at fertility clinics.

Bush opted not to go that far. He
said he would allow funding for research using existing stem cell lines
only, "where the decision on life and death has already been made."

Conservative groups had called upon
Bush to stick to campaign promises to reject any federal funding for embryonic
stem cell research.

Bush said research using embryonic
stem cells involved "great promise, and great peril."

"We must proceed with great care,"
Bush said.

The president said scientists have
told him that research on the 60 existing stem cell lines "has great promise
that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to
explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing
a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction
or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the
potential for life."

Bush also endorsed increased funding
for research on stem cells obtained from adults, umbilical cords, placentas
and animals, saying the federal government will spend $250 million on this
research this year.

In addition, he announced creation
of a President's Council on Bioethics that will consider scientific and
ethical considerations as the research proceeds. It will be chaired by
Dr. Leon Kass of the University of Chicago. (More reaction from researchers.)

But others questioned whether research
using only the existing stem cell lines would be sufficient.

Research supporter Montel Williams,
a talk-show host who suffers from multiple sclerosis, said it was not known
whether the 60 cell lines referred to by Bush were "viable." He urged funding
for research using stem cells from excess embryos that are to be discarded
anyway.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts,
another research supporter, welcomed Bush's decision as "an important step
forward," according to The Associated Press. But, Kennedy added, Bush's
decision "doesn't go far enough to fulfill the lifesaving potential of
this promising new medical research." (More on the political reaction.)

Grappling with the issue

Bush, sources said, previously had
decided to flatly oppose federal funding of research that involved or used
embryos gathered solely for research purposes, or embryos created through
cloning human cells.

The issue Bush grappled with was
whether to stand by his previous statements opposing federal funding for
any embryonic stem cell research, or to reverse course and support the
position backed by many of his closest advisers, including Thompson, Vice
President Dick Cheney, Chief of Staff Andy Card and White House counselor
Karen Hughes, according to sources.

Among those who recommended against
any change in position, these sources said, were strategist Karl Rove,
the top White House liaison to conservative Republicans.

During the presidential campaign,
Bush said he opposed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

And in a May 18, 2001, letter to
a group called The Culture of Life Foundation, Bush wrote: "I oppose federal
funding for stem cell research that involved destroying living human embryos."
Bush went on to say he supported research using stems cells from adult
donors.

But the president came under heavy
pressure to reconsider and had grappled with the issue for more than two
months, holding dozens of meetings with medical and scientific experts,
ethicists, religious leaders and others.

He also raised the issue at events
on other issues, including a meeting with doctors to discuss the patients'
bill of rights and an event that included breast cancer survivors.

White House officials said Bush reached
his decision since arriving in Texas for his working vacation and decided
Wednesday he wanted to announce it on Thursday in the nationally televised
address. These officials said he had made clear he wanted to be the first
to disclose it.

Democrats to press for funding
A decision to allow broad federal
funding for the research could have put Bush at odds with many cultural
conservative organizations -- and key GOP leaders in the House.

Majority Leader Dick Armey and Majority
Whip Tom DeLay, for example, had said they would lead an effort to block
any Bush attempt to allow federal funding.

Leading Democrats, on the other hand,
have vowed to press for legislative language allowing federal funding.

"To support federal funding for embryonic
stem cell research is to come down on the side of hope for the millions
of Americans suffering from diseases ranging from Alzheimer's to cancer
to Parkinson's to diabetes," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South
Dakota. (More reaction from political leaders.)

A: Stem cells are master cells that
have the ability to transform themselves into other cell types, including
those in the brain, heart, bones, muscles and skin.

Q: What are embryonic stem cells?

A: Embryonic stem cells are cells
contained in embryos that have the ability to transform themselves into
virtually any other type of cell in the body. It is this quality that enables
the tiny embryo to develop into a fully formed body.

About five days after fertilization,
the human embryo becomes a blastocyst, which is a hollow sphere of about
100 cells.

Cells in its outer layer go on to
form the placenta and other organs needed to support fetal development
in the uterus. The inner cells go on to form nearly all of the tissues
of the body. These are the embryonic stem cells used in research.

Q: What are adult stem cells?

A: The name is a misnomer because
they are harbored in mature tissue, in the bodies of children as well as
adults. Adult stem cells are more specialized than embryonic ones and give
rise to specific cell types. The mature body uses these cells as "spare
parts" to replace other worn out cells.

Recent research has suggested that
adult stem cells can turn into many more cell types than scientists once
believed possible.

Q: What is the source of embryonic
stem cells?

A: Scientists generally harvest embryonic
stem cells from embryos left over in fertility clinics after in vitro fertilization.
These "test-tube baby" procedures, used to help infertile couples have
a baby, involve fertilizing a woman's egg cells with a man's sperm cells
in a laboratory dish.

Several embryos are created at a
time, and not all are implanted into the woman's uterus to create live
births. Embryos left over by the couple are slated for destruction by the
fertility clinic. These can serve as the source for deriving stem cells,
a process that involves removing the blastocyst's inner cells and destroying
the embryo.

Q: What are the possible medical
uses for stem cells?

A: Because stem cells can turn into
many other cell types with the right prompting, doctors might be able to
replace tissues and organs damaged by disease or injury to restore healthy
function.

For example, in people with Parkinson's
disease, injecting stem cells into the area of the brain that controls
muscle movement, where the disease kills nerve cells, might regenerate
the neurons and reverse the illnesses. This procedure would be called a
stem-cell transplantation.

A: Using stem cells, researchers
would be able to test a drug's therapeutic effects and toxic side effects
in human tissue without using a laboratory animal as a proxy. In addition,
scientists could harness and package stem cells to deliver gene therapies
to specific targets in the body to treat genetic problems.

Q: Are embryonic stem cells better
than adult stem cells?

A: It is too early to say. Embryonic
stem cells boast two important qualities: They can become almost anything
in the body, and they can be grown in culture in an unlimited quantity.
The disadvantages are that a patient's immune system might reject transplants
of embryonic stem cells just as some organ transplants are rejected, and
that runaway growth of embryonic stem cells could produce tumors.

Because adult stem cells would be
taken from the patient who would receive them later in treatment, there
are no rejection issues. Disadvantages of adult stem cells include:

Doubts about whether they can transform
themselves as readily as embryonic stem cells.

Difficulty in growing them in culture
at the quantity needed to facilitate transplants.

Worry that years of exposure to toxins,
radiation and DNA replicating errors could leave them with genetic abnormalities.

Q: What's the controversy?

A: For some people, the destruction
of any embryo is tantamount to murdering a human being.

Q: Has the federal government
ever funded research involving human embryonic stem cells?

A: No, it has not. Human embryonic
stem cells were first isolated in 1998. A law passed in 1995 banned federal
funding for any research "in which a human embryo (is) destroyed, discarded
or knowingly subjected to risk of injury greater than that allowed on fetuses
in utero," or in the womb.

In January 1999, the Department of
Health and Human Services general counsel's office issued a legal opinion
that the earlier law did not apply to stem cells derived, using private
money, from spare embryos at fertility clinics because the stem cells themselves
were not embryos and the destruction of the embryos was not financed by
the government.

Shortly after being sworn into office
in January, President Bush ordered the Health and Human Services Department
to reconsider its legal opinion.

WASHINGTON -- The debate over stem
cells is shifting to the halls of Congress, but the action is moving to
the nation's laboratories as scientists begin the painstaking work of translating
promise into actual treatments.

President Bush's decision to allow
limited federal funding for the research offered both comfort and angst
to advocates on both sides of the debate. And it complicated the politics
all around. Bush may have satisfied just enough people just enough to stave
off congressional action.

"The president probably bought himself
some time," said Thomas Mann, an expert on Congress at the Brookings Institution.
"Pressure will build again, but it will take some time."

At issue is research involving days-old
human embryos, each one smaller than the period at the end of this sentence,
left over from fertility treatments. Inside sit stem cells that can develop
into any type of tissue.

Scientists say these cells could
help cure many diseases, but to get them out, the embryo must be destroyed.
For some who believe life begins at conception, this amounts to taking
one life to try and save another.

Trying to thread an ethical needle,
Bush said Thursday that he would allow federal funding for research on
stem cell lines, but only those that have already been created. Each embryo
can yield one stem cell line, which can continue replicating indefinitely.

At the National Institutes of Health
on Friday, researchers were beginning to catalog the existing stem cell
lines, which officials now estimate at 60 worldwide. Around the country,
scientists were beginning to hone their ideas for grant applications, which
were expected to be submitted and awarded by early next year.

Dr. Harold Varmus, who led the NIH
under President Clinton, predicted that hundreds of researchers would get
into the field, even under limited federal funding. Ultimately, he predicted
that the federal government would spend tens to hundreds of millions of
dollars per year in this field.

Dr. Catherine Verfaillie, who directs
the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute, said the political turmoil
surrounding this research dissuaded her from applying for federal funding
when it was initially offered last year.

"Many investigators were in the same
boat," she said. But now that the matter appears settled, she plans to
submit a grant application.

Also Friday, Bush defended his decision,
saying he struck the right balance between the sanctity of life and the
urgency of research, with enough funding to figure out whether promise
will translate into a cure.

"I listened to a lot of people and
did what I thought was right," Bush told ABC News from his ranch in Crawford,
Texas. "I think this is the kind of decision where it does require prayer.
Prayerful consideration."

In Washington, both sides expected
debate over the issue to resume in Congress when lawmakers return next
month.

Research proponents make up a majority
of the Senate and close to it in the House, and some have pledged to push
for broader funding.

"Restrictions on this lifesaving
research will slow the development of the new cures that are so urgently
needed by millions of patients across America," said Sen. Edward Kennedy,
D-Mass.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he
would continue to push his legislation allowing funding with few restrictions,
a measure that could be attached to spending bills that will move through
Congress this fall. And Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., urged Americans --
especially those in wheelchairs or whose relatives suffer from Alzheimer's
disease -- to call their representatives while they are home over the summer
break.

But some important allies, anti-abortion
Republicans who support the research, are not likely to challenge Bush's
plan.

"We just have to watch this play
out," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. He told reporters in Salt Lake City
that he would like to see more stem cell lines available but that Congress
should hold back for now. "Let's give it a chance."

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle,
D-S.D., predicted that "the Senate will want to take action" to open up
more research funding. But he stopped short of saying he'll support it,
and he praised the president's thoughtfulness.

On the other side of issue, many
Christian conservatives were talking tough and warning the president that
there is a limit to the number of times he can go against them.

Still, conservatives were markedly
divided over Bush's move on stem cells. Some prominent anti-abortion groups
and leaders welcomed it, but others accused him of crossing a moral line.
Any effort to ban funding outright didn't have the votes before Bush offered
his compromise, and it would attract even less support now.

Rather, opponents hope to stave off
any attempt to allow for broader funding.

"The next step would be to hold the
line against any kind of coalition created to expand funding," said Deal
Hudson, editor of the Catholic magazine Crisis and an informal adviser
to Bush.

Ken Connor, president of the conservative
Family Research Council, said it will be more difficult to argue against
any embryonic stem cell research now that Bush has endorsed it in part.

"We have to help the Congress understand
that nothing less than life itself is at stake," he said. "Unquestionably
there's an uphill battle in Congress."

At Rutgers University, a leading
spinal cord injury researcher who had urged Bush to approve embryonic stem
cell funding said the president's decision "was better than nothing."

But Dr. Wise Young added that limiting
federal funds to existing cell lines will further delay finding treatments
for Alzheimer's and other diseases.

"I think Bush did not close the door
completely," said Young, a professor of cell biology and director of the
W.M. Keck Center for Collaborative Neuroscience at Rutgers in New Brunswick.

But, he added, "Time is of the essence.
As it stands now, clinical trials utilizing human embryonic stem cell treatments
[for diseases such as Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis] are further off
in the future."

Dru Little has watched her mother’s
memory deteriorate to the point where the 81-year-old woman doesn’t remember
that her husband died in 1997.

“She’s waiting for him to come back
from fishing or work,” said Dru Little, 57, whose mother, Adeline Little,
is in the final stages of Alzheimer’s disease. “You have no idea unless
you’ve lived through this. It’s horrendous.”

Dru Little isn’t familiar with the
details of stem-cell research or President Bush’s decision regarding federal
funding. But like several St. Joseph residents who have seen the devastating
effects of Alzheimer’s and other diseases, she’s more interested in the
potential for a cure than the ethics of harvesting cells from frozen embryos.

“I wish they had more funding,” Dru
Little said. “More and more people are going to have this.”

Scientists believe stem-cell research
might yield more effective treatment or cures for diseases and conditions
like Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, paralysis and diabetes.

“Diabetes runs in my family,” said
Karen Organ, who was diagnosed with the disease in 1986 and has to give
herself insulin injections at night. “It’s going to be carried on unless
they find a cure. We need to do something for a cure.”

But for many, the euphoria of a potential
cure is tempered with questions about destroying embryos to get the stem
cells. Victoria Christgen, executive director of the Northwestern Missouri
chapter of the Alzheimer’s Association, said it’s important to respect
the views of those who oppose stem-cell research.

The Alzheimer’s Association supports
federal funds for the research.

“It’s a very touchy subject,” said
Ms. Christgen, who lost her father to the degenerative brain disease. “It’s
a very personal issue for people. The Alzheimer’s Association reviews this
every year.”

The association believes the research
should go forward with strict ethical guidelines. “We’re all grasping for
that straw,” she said.

Debra Merritt, the executive director
of
Midland Empire Resources for Independent Living, said she recognizes the
benefits of the research but has personal concerns about the use of embryos.

MERIL provides services to individuals
with multiple sclerosis and other disabilities. “It would be nice to think
we could work ourselves out of a job,” she said. “I still contend with
the ethical issue.”

Verlinda Hughes, a benefits specialist
at MERIL, hopes scientists and the government can find a way to move ahead
on the research while answering ethical concerns.

Ms. Hughes has MS.

“If there is a way there could be
a cure, that would be well worth it,” she said.

Washington - While they welcomed
President George W. Bush's decision to allow federally funded research
on existing human embryonic stem cells, scientists said last night that
they were mystified by Bush's claim that there are more than 60 such stem
cell lines now available worldwide for use.

"I don't know of 60 existing cell
lines," said Douglas Melton, professor of cellular and molecular biology
at Harvard University and a specialist on stem cells. He said the published
scientific literature involves only about 10 lines, some of which don't
grow well in culture and are, he said, "largely useless."

"Maybe he knows something we all
don't know," said Paul Berg, a Stanford University biochemist and Nobel
laureate. He said he was willing to await clarification from the White
House on the source of the cells and their availability to researchers.

The field of embryonic stem cell
research is so new that scientists do not yet know how many cell lines
- indefinitely dividing colonies of cells grown from individual embryos
- will be required for basic studies of the cells' development and their
potential use in treating such diseases as diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Until Bush's announcement, scientists
had generally agreed that perhaps a dozen human embryonic stem cell lines
are established in laboratories here and abroad. In the United States,
all of the lines have been established with private funding.

The WiCell Research Institute, a
private spinoff of the University of Wisconsin - whose James Thomson first
isolated embryonic stem cells in 1998 - is offering five cell lines for
distribution. Cells have been shipped to about 30 other labs worldwide.
A team based at Monash University in Australia has established four human
embryonic stem cell lines and expects to distribute them to about 15 labs
by summer's end.

A White House fact sheet, distributed
after Bush's announcement, said "there are currently more than 60 existing
different human embryonic stem cell lines that have been developed from
excess embryos created for in vitro fertilization with the consent of the
donors and without financial inducement." The lines are used in about a
dozen labs in the United States, Australia, India, Israel and Sweden, it
said.

"I can tell you that as of late last
week, the NIH [National Institutes of Health] confirmed for us that there
were in fact in excess of 60 stem cell lines in existence now," a senior
administration official said.

It was unclear last night whether
the cell lines mentioned by Bush all meet the stringent certification guidelines
proposed by the National Institutes of Health during the Clinton administration,
guidelines that were suspended by the Bush administration while it deliberated
the future of stem cell research.

Thomson has said that his cell lines
probably do not meet the National Institutes of Health guidelines and he
was prepared to produce additional lines from surplus embryos that did
meet the standards. Melton said it appears that Bush may be willing to
allow use of the existing Wisconsin lines, but such questions will have
to be clarified.

"There are just of host of questions,"
said Lawrence Goldstein, a professor in the Department of Cellular and
Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

He said he was "stunned" at the claim
of more than 60 existing stem cell lines.

"It could mean that there are large
numbers of unpublished lines, that they are this well kept secret," Goldstein
said. "I'm concerned that if the characterizations [of the lines] have
not been published, we don't know what the quality is."

The team in Australia was preparing
to submit its cell lines to the National Institutes of Health for certification
when the Bush administration suspended the process.

Some scientists said that unless
the private labs are allowed to derive additional cell lines and distribute
them to federally funded researchers, the field may still be constrained
in the United States.

Embryonic stem cells are extracted
from the inner cell mass of embryos that are about 5 days old. The cells,
still in a blank state, have the capacity to turn into all of the cell
types in the human body.

Critics say any research that destroys
embryos to harvest their cells is immoral. They urged Bush to limit research
only to adult stem cells taken from bone marrow and other adult tissues
or from placentas and umbilical cords.

But stem cells from adult tissues
do not appear to have the same capacity to change into many different cell
types as the embryonic cells do, specialists say.

Scientists say it is impossible to
say how many lines will be needed for adequate studies on the fundamental
behavior and development of stem cells. But they said a dozen is almost
certainly too few.

"If we had access to 50 to 100 cell
lines, we are on the mark for establishing that embryonic stem cells are
going to achieve the advances we've been predicting," Berg said. "What
has been achieved to date has been very little."

"From a scientific perspective, there's
no sense to any limit" on the number of cell lines, Goldstein said. "Ten
would be way too few. And I can't believe you would need thousands, at
least initially."

Goldstein and others said there were
other issues regarding the existing human embryonic stem cell lines.

"How do I know those very first lines
were derived in the optimal way?" Goldstein asked. He said it took several
years for researchers to determine the best techniques for establishing
mouse embryonic stem cell lines.

Since the existing cell lines were
established under private auspices, there also are substantial questions
about patenting and licensing rights. WiCell already has awarded broad
and exclusive commercial rights on its stem cells to Geron Corp. of Menlo
Park, Calif.

Craig Gordon contributed to this
story.

Stem Cell Reaction

'Stem cell research will continue
anyway [in private labs]. All this decision will do will determine whether
it will happen in time for the patients who need it today.' - ALS patient
Stephen Heywood, whose brother Jamie is helping coordinate research on
the disease

'This reflects at least some recognition
on the part of the government of the technology to advance techniques and
benefit patients. But it is disappointing that what are largely political
imperatives would limit developing these approaches to their fullest potential.'
- Dr. Steven Goldman, endowed professor of neurology and neuroscience at
New York Weill-Cornell Center in Manhattan

'Stem cell research is something
I deeply believe in for myself and the millions of other people who could
benefit. I think [celebrities] were able to bring information to people.
We do have the ability to get the public's ear.' - Actress Mary Tyler Moore,
who has battled diabetes for more than 30 years

'The Church believes that the embryo
is a living human being and proclaims that no human being can ever be used
as a means to an end, no matter how noble that end may be... We support
aggressive research using adult stem cells so that we can achieve the benefits
of scientific progress without allowing ourselves to be de-sensitized to
fundamental human rights.' - Msgr. John Alesandro, administrator with the
Diocese of Rockville Centre

'As far as the Islamic perspective
goes, there is a big difference between stem cells and embryos. Anything
that interferes with the natural divine creation of humanity is something
we are not for. But we are for research and progress that will save lives,
as long as there is no fetus involved.' - Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan, director
of interfaith affairs and communications for the Islamic Center of Long
Island in Westbury

Stem cells hold the promise for treatment
and possible cure for many diseases. This decision WILL affect tens of
millions of people! President Bush will make his mark as to what his presidency
will be remembered for. Stem-cell research is pro-life. It will save lives,
not take them!' - Rob Senecal of Huntington, who has amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease)

'In Judaism, the overriding concern
is saving lives. When there's that possibility of saving lives the choice
is very clear.' -

Rabbi Darryl Crystal, a Reform Jewish
leader with the North Shore Synagogue in Syosset

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. debate
over embryonic stem-cell research has made strange political bedfellows,
allying some social conservatives with abortion rights supporters, as polls
show Americans cautiously favor using federal tax dollars to pay for these
studies.

In the hours before President Bush's
scheduled announcement Thursday on whether to allow such federally funded
research to go forward, stem-cell partisans -- mostly research supporters
-- flooded the media with comment.

"To support federal funding for embryonic
stem-cell research is to come down on the side of hope for the millions
of Americans suffering from diseases ranging from Alzheimer's, to cancer,
to Parkinson's, to diabetes," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South
Dakota told reporters.

Fellow Democrat, Rep. Richard Gephardt
of Missouri, the

House minority leader, echoed those
sentiments in a statement, "I hope that in his decision, President Bush
will choose science over politics."

Current comments from their Republican
counterparts were not instantly available, but their stance on this issue
has long been clear.

Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert
of Illinois matter-of-factly said last month that the time was not right
for federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Senate Republican
leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas
have been vocal in their opposition.

But this issue has not followed the
expected political partisan divide.

ABORTION FOES SUPPORT RESEARCH

Two Republican senators with solid
records against abortion have made arguments for stem-cell research.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said in
a much-quoted comment that he "just could not equate a child living in
the womb, a child with moving toes and fingers and a beating heart, with
an embryo about to be taken from a freezer."

This reference went to the heart
of the question, since research would be done on stem cells taken from
the frozen embryos created by in vitro fertilization that were already
slated for disposal.

Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, a physician
who has performed heart and lung transplants and who opposes abortion,
suggested that both embryonic and adult stem-cell research should proceed
with federal funding under a "carefully regulated, fully transparent framework"
that would ensure "the highest level of respect for the moral significance
of the human embryo."

The Roman Catholic Church has been
a vocal opponent of the research, with Pope John Paul II characterizing
it as evil in public remarks made July 23 when the American president visited
him in Rome.

When some analysts suggested the
pontiff's remarks left room to approve this study, the Vatican issued a
clarifying statement two days later specifically condemning the use of
embryos produced for in vitro fertilization.

The anti-abortion group National
Right to Life Committee offers visitors to its Web site a petition against
this research, saying "Urgent! Tell President Bush You Too Oppose Embryo-Destructive
Research!"

Nancy Reagan, wife of former Republican
president and current Alzheimer's patient Ronald Reagan, let it be known
that she favors stem-cell research. During his presidency, Reagan opposed
abortion.

Actors Christopher Reeve and Michael
J. Fox, who suffer, respectively, from paralyzing spinal cord injury and
Parkinson's disease, have also spoken in favor of stem-cell research. Scientists
have said this research may offer hope for both these ailments.

A Zogby International poll released
Thursday found 52 percent of respondents thought stem-cell research was
an important step toward treatment of such ailments as Parkinson's disease
and multiple sclerosis.

At the same time, the poll found
30 percent said another way must be found to do this research because using
stem cells would "take the lives of innocent unborn children." The poll,
taken July 26-29, had an error margin of 3.2 percent.

President Bush's decision to allow
limited federal support of research on stem cells from human embryos has
cooled the widespread fervor in Congress to require far more expansive
funding of the scientific work, according to lawmakers and interest groups
on both sides of the issue.

But the delicate distinctions the
president has drawn -- which will provide subsidies for studies using only
stem cell lines that have already been created -- have not entirely deterred
attempts on Capitol Hill to define the government's role in the highly
charged research.

The chairman of two Senate committees
that oversee medical research announced yesterday that they will press
ahead with hearings on the issue immediately after Congress returns in
September from its month-long break. But several senators and House members
who favor broader funding said privately they now are uncertain how much
political impetus will exist in the fall to alter the ground rules Bush
has set. Rather than rushing to legislate, they said, lawmakers may wait
to find out whether scientists believe they can make biomedical progress
within the restrictions the president has imposed.

A day after Bush announced his decision
on stem cell research during his first televised address to the nation,
the reaction on and off Capitol Hill indicated the administration found
an approach that may suit its political needs -- at least for now. "Members
of Congress, like the American people, recognized that the president found
a solution that advances science while adhering to the highest ethical
standards," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Nevertheless, White House officials
moved to reinforce their portrayal of the decision as painstaking and deliberative,
furnishing an unusual public accounting of the people -- and even the books
-- Bush consulted. Meanwhile, reactions, many of them dissatisfied, poured
forth from the most passionate proponents and opponents of the research.

After soliciting a wide spectrum
of advice for three months, the president said in his speech Thursday night
that he would move gingerly to allow the first federal help for research
on embryonic stem cells. Scientists will be able to apply for grants from
the National Institutes of Health starting next year, provided they want
to experiment with cells from colonies, or "lines," that were created before
the president reached his decision. No federal money would be allowed for
research on cell lines from newly destroyed embryos or for the creation
of embryos specifically for research.

Under the new rules, those lines
must have been developed from extra frozen embryos that were created in
fertility clinics -- and would otherwise have been thrown out. Donors must
give permission and cannot receive any financial inducements. The president
also reiterated his opposition to human cloning for any purpose, including
research, and he urged researchers to explore the potential of stem cells
derived from adults.

Although more arcane than issues
such as taxes and education that have dominated the administration's agenda,
the stem cell decision has enormous political stakes. Fraught with profound
ethical and scientific implications, the issue represents a collision of
competing interests: those who argue that destruction of embryos violates
the sanctity of life vs. those who argue that stem cells -- with their
ability to develop into many kinds of human tissue -- hold vast promise
to relieve human suffering from disease.

One of Bush's top aides, White House
counselor Karen P. Hughes, said yesterday that the president had discounted
political considerations. In an interview with ABC News, Bush said: "I
didn't agonize. I thought. I spent a lot of time on it, listening to people."

At a briefing near Bush's ranch in
Crawford, Tex., Hughes also contended the president's new rules were compatible
with the stance he adopted as a presidential candidate last year. He said
at the time that he opposed "federal funding for stem cell research that
involves destroying living human embryos." Hughes said yesterday, "In the
end, his conclusion is absolutely consistent with what he has felt all
along, and that is that he does not feel it is appropriate for government
to sanction further destruction of human embryos."

Since the prime-time speech, the
president's position has been criticized as inadequate from supporters
of stem cell research and opponents alike. Opponents, including antiabortion
organizations and some other conservatives, contend Bush's action is immoral
because it involves research that required the destruction of embryos,
which they view as living humans. Proponents predict the restrictions will
hinder scientific work.

Nevertheless, lawmakers on both sides
said the political consequences would have been worse for the White House
if Bush had banned all subsidies, as many conservative supporters had hoped.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), chairman
of the Senate Republican Conference, said yesterday that Bush "did a very
smart tactical move when he put together this compromise position," even
though Santorum opposes any funding. At a time when a majority of the Senate
and many members of the House want to broadly support such research, Santorum
said in an interview that Bush had "probably cut that debate off at the
pass."

Indeed, several lawmakers who have
pressed for unlimited subsidies have sounded more patient after Bush's
announcement. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), one of the strongest advocates
of embryonic stem cell research and chairman of the Senate subcommittee
that funds medical research, said he was "surprised, pleasantly so" by
Bush's position.

Harkin said in an interview that
he does not want to move ahead right now with legislation he is sponsoring
with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that would force NIH to provide wider subsidies.
But he added that he might "have to revisit it" if leading scientists believe
the number of existing stem cell lines is inadequate for "this research
to reach its full potential."

A spokeswoman for Senate Majority
Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said he continues to favor "moving forward
with federal funding for stem cell research without the restrictions the
president put on the research." Meanwhile, a House GOP leadership aide
said that with most lawmakers out of town, it is too early to tell whether
that chamber will pursue wider subsidies -- or, conversely, whether it
will insert the kind of ban on such funding in this year's appropriations
bill that it has included for the past three years.

Yesterday, an administration official
said Bush may have settled on his decision Aug. 2, when he met with NIH
scientists who reported that they had canvassed researchers and companies
in the United States and abroad and located at least 60 stem cell lines,
twice as many as the institutes had suggested were in existence last month.
The discovery implied to the president that the existing cell lines could
provide enough material for researchers to make significant progress.

Jay Lefkowitz, who attended many
of Bush's meetings on stem cells in his role as general counsel of the
Office of Management and Budget, said the president considered the five
dozen cell colonies "exciting news" because it would "provide a great deal
of opportunity for research."

Some scientists yesterday questioned
whether that many cell colonies exist.

But Health and Human Services Secretary
Tommy G. Thompson said he expected NIH would continue to discover lines
that had been created as of Aug. 9, the date of Bush's announcement.

Speaking at an afternoon news conference
at the institutes' Bethesda campus, Thompson said NIH yesterday began to
create a registry of the known cell lines and was beginning to design a
process that would enable them to be shared among researchers.

At least one scientific leader in
the field, James Thomson, the University of Wisconsin researcher who discovered
human embryonic stem cells in November 1998, said he was satisfied with
Bush's approach. "People have said they want dozens of cell lines. Well,
60 is dozens," Thomson said. "Even if some of those are no good, there's
still going to be a lot to work with."

For all the restrictions President
Bush imposed on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research,
he also made a little-noticed policy change that in one area makes his
rules more permissive than those of President Bill Clinton.

That policy change -- the removal
of strict ethics guidelines governing the procurement of stem cell-laden
embryos from fertility clinics -- means that colonies of cells that had
flunked the Clinton administration's ethics guidelines will now be eligible
for use in federally funded studies.

The subtle but potentially significant
difference between the Bush and Clinton rules was one of several areas
that federal officials tried to clarify yesterday in the aftermath of the
stem cell announcement, highlighting some of the perils that Bush faced
as he navigated through the sensitive, high-profile issue.

Bush announced Thursday night that
he would permit federal funding only for research on existing lines, or
colonies, of stem cells, barring taxpayer money for research involving
the creation or destruction of new embryos as sources of cells.

The long-awaited announcement drew
a range of reactions, but seemed, at least for the moment, to quell a drive
in Congress to demand more funding for stem cell research, which scientists
hope will lead to new treatments for a wide range of diseases.

Much of the reaction focused on Bush's
decision to limit federal subsidies to existing cell lines, with some scientists
challenging the administration's estimate of how many lines actually exist
and questioning how useful those lines will be.

On the whole, Bush's new stem cell
rules are far more restrictive than the ones Clinton had put in place because
they limit research to cells derived from embryos that were destroyed before
Bush made his announcement.

But on the question of embryo procurement,
the Bush plan demands only that donors at fertility clinics give "proper
informed consent," without defining what that means. By contrast, the Clinton
rules specified in great detail how the informed consent process should
proceed. It demanded that consent documents use specific wording to ensure
that women did not feel coerced to donate their embryos.

In addition, the Clinton rules also
required that only frozen embryos be used for research so that embryos
would not be taken just as a woman was undergoing in vitro fertilization
-- an emotionally vulnerable time that ethicists have said should be off-limits
to researchers seeking embryos. Bush has made no mention of such a restriction.

Among the cells that now will be
eligible for federal funding are colonies created at the University of
Wisconsin, the leading academic research institution located in the home
state of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, a National
Institutes of Health official confirmed.

The cells were cultured by James
Thomson and were the first human embryonic stem cells to be isolated in
the United States. Thomson used fresh embryos and also used consent wording
that differed slightly from the language specified under the Clinton rules.

Under Bush's new rules, however,
a University of Wisconsin foundation that holds two key patents on Thomson's
stem cells will be able to distribute those cells to researchers who want
to study them -- and, if the research proves useful, perhaps collect substantial
royalties.

HHS spokesman Bill Hall said the
Wisconsin connection had nothing to do with Bush's decision to change the
rules the way he did. "It played no role whatsoever in the deliberations"
leading up to the new rules, Hall said. "It had nothing to do with who
owned which [cell] lines."

Others said that in any case, Bush's
dilution of the ethics rules was disturbing.

"It's very troubling to find that
this policy may actually grandfather in cell lines that were ineligible
on ethical grounds even under the Clinton guidelines," said Richard Doerflinger
of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes federal funding
of human embryo stem cell research.

"To be sure, our moral objection
has not centered on how informed the parents' consent is," Doerflinger
said, noting that it focuses instead on the well-being of the embryos.
"But at least the Clinton guidelines spelled all this out. This is distressing."

Bush's statement Thursday that there
are 60 human embryonic stem cell lines already in existence eligible for
study with federal funds under the new plan caught many researchers by
surprise. Even specialists in the field had been unaware there were more
than 10 or 15 lines.

Lana Skirbol, NIH director of science
policy, said the number Bush referred to was derived from a recent intensive
round of inquiries to laboratories around the world by the agency. Many
more lines are in existence than previously believed, she said, with several
being kept behind closed doors to protect commercial and proprietary interests.

Some scientists said they suspect
that many of those cells are not truly stem cells. The criteria for stem
cells are quite strict; the cells must be able to reproduce without limit,
and all progeny cells must be able to reproduce indefinitely and develop
into every cell type in the body.

Many cells that at first appear to
be stem cells have proven not to be, but Skirbol said the agency used strict
definitional rules in its survey. Moreover, she said, all appear to be
eligible for federally funded studies.

"The NIH believes that all 60 cell
lines meet the president's criteria" for federal funding, she said. To
meet the criteria, cells must be from embryos left over from fertility
treatments (as opposed to having been created for research); parents must
not have been compensated for donating the embryos; proper informed consent
must have been obtained; and the embryos must have been destroyed before
9 p.m. Aug. 9 -- the day of the president's announcement.

In an interview, Skirbol acknowledged
that a few of the existing cell lines may be found to be of little or no
use, perhaps because they don't grow well or cannot be easily manipulated.
But new lines are also expected to become available she said, as researchers
reveal lines created in recent months.

The NIH will require documentation
that the cells are from embryos destroyed before Thursday, she said. The
agency is creating a registry of all eligible stem cell lines -- and, in
a difficult task, devising material transfer agreements that specify the
legal conditions under which cells can be shared -- so that researchers
will soon be able to choose from a menu of embryo cells.

New grants will not be available
until next year, Skirbol said. But scientists who already have NIH grants
can file for supplemental money for stem cell work -- a system that works
faster than the normal grant approval process. And many researchers already
working with conventional cells are expected to apply to NIH for permission
to add stem cells to their experiments. That process does not require grant
approval and can take just a few weeks.

Depending on how long it takes to
work out legal arrangements, some stem cells could be available on this
basis within a few weeks.

The Bush system will work much more
efficiently than the Clinton system would have, Skirbol said, in part because
it eliminates a layer of scientific and ethical oversight from a special
committee called for under the Clinton plan. That committee was formed
earlier this year but never met.

One of the more complicated aspects
of getting the system in place will be coordinating patent and royalty
arrangements that may be demanded by laboratories that have stem cells
to share. The arrangement at Wisconsin in particular makes it difficult
to predict how much profit, if any, the university may make from its stem
cells.

But scientists who find lucrative
uses for those cells, such as a treatment for diabetes, may have to pay
a portion of their revenue or profits to the university foundation, depending
on what kind of arrangement they have made and how much of the work is
covered by the university's patents. Cohn said he had no profit projections
for the stem cell business, and said any suggestion that Thompson considered
the university's finances during the stem cell decision-making process
was "ludicrous."

Betty Ann Krahnke watched President
Bush's stem cell speech Thursday night from her wheelchair, where she has
lain for much of the last two years, extensively paralyzed by Lou Gehrig's
disease.

The former Montgomery County Council
member thought Bush's backing of limited embryonic stem cell research,
which may one day help Lou Gehrig's patients, was balanced and considered.
But, she added yesterday via her computerized speaking machine, "I hoped
he would go farther, because time is critical."

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the
Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington, listened to the president's speech
on the radio in his apartment in Hyattsville, also impressed by Bush's
consideration of the issue, but pained that he may have opened a dangerous
ethical door.

"Unfortunately, he does allow the
allotment of federal funding . . . for something that many of us feel to
be morally wrong," McCarrick said. "It opens the door to experimentation.
What I'm afraid of is the restrictions are not going to hold. . . . Any
time you lessen that respect for human life, you're on that slippery slope."

Their views -- one based on physical
reality, the other on moral conviction -- were part of the sometimes anguished
debate that spread across the Washington area and the country yesterday
after the president told the nation that he supported federal funding of
research into stem cells already taken from human embryos.

Opinions swirled in between and around
those of the cardinal and the afflicted politician.

Krahnke, a Republican who was honorary
chair of the county Bush campaign last year, had told the president her
views about stem cells and her illness, which also is known as amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis, ALS.

"Please do not change the one policy
of former President Clinton with which I agree, allowing stem cell research,"
she wrote Bush this summer, in a painstakingly composed five-paragraph
letter.

"Stem cell research holds the best
hope for a cure for ALS and many other diseases," she wrote. "I urge you
not to cut off this potential lifeline."

Some embryonic stem cell research
has shown promise in research into ALS, a terminal and incurable disease
that destroys the motor neuron cells carrying messages from the brain to
the body, experts said yesterday. But the promise is remote.

"It's very early at this point,"
said Lucie Bruijn, science director and vice president of the ALS Association.
"There's been some very interesting and provocative data, none of which
has been published or scientifically reviewed."

"Although there's a hope," she said,
"there's a real challenge."

There are about 30,000 Lou Gehrig's
disease patients in the United States at any given time, the experts said
of the disease named for the baseball great, who died of it in 1941. There
are about 5,600 new cases each year.

The president "probably did as much
as he could considering the political pressures," Krahnke's husband, Wilson,
said yesterday. "You don't just leap right off the bridge. You sort of
take a few steps at a time. . . . I think he came up with maybe the best
practical solution at this time."

Among those most torn yesterday was
Eileen Gould, of Montgomery Village, in Montgomery County.

Gould is a Roman Catholic, and the
Church opposes embryonic stem cell research. But Gould's husband, John,
has Lou Gehrig's disease. Her daughter, Pamela, has just undergone successful
in vitro fertilization that has produced several leftover embryos that
have now been frozen.

Eileen Gould said yesterday that
she and her husband support embryonic stem cell research. "It would be
wonderful if this led to any decrease in ALS, Parkinson's, [multiple sclerosis],
or Alzheimer's," she said. "The end justifies the means in this case. .
. . But I'm toeing a line with my own conscience."

The local Catholic Church leader
respectfully disagreed.

"I just think there were so many
political and other pressures on the president that he allowed something
which I think is a mistake," McCarrick said.

McCarrick said he greatly preferred
research into adult stem cells taken from umbilical cords and human placentas.
"We can get them without killing people, without taking these little embryos,
that, if you leave them alone, will grow into people like you and me."

Others who described themselves as
religious also equated the embryonic stem cell research with the taking
of lives.

"These stem cells are the beginning
of life," Mark Senderling, 38, a Department of Energy engineer who lives
in Sandy Spring and described himself as a committed Christian. "Life starts
at conception."

"I believe [Bush] to be a devout
Christian as well, and he's cut a very fine line here," Senderling said
in an interview on the Mall yesterday. "But I'm afraid to see where this
will go."

Claudia Escribano, who works for
a Web design training firm in Reston, said she supports Bush's decision
to back research on existing stem cells.

The 40-year-old, a Democrat, said
she thinks the research could help those afflicted with spinal cord injuries,
Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's.

"The research in that area is so
important. I think you have to look at both sides," Escribano said, enjoying
lunch at the Mall with her 3-year-old daughter, Caitlin. "Why not help
the people who are here now?"

Outside the Montgomery County Courthouse
in Rockville, David Loughery, 53, a transportation planner from Gaithersburg,
said he thought Bush had gone back on a campaign promise to oppose such
research. "What else is new?" he said.

"I don't particularly approve of"
such research, he said. "I'm afraid that what'll happen is that instead
of being used for valid research, it'll become somebody's toy."

Loughery, who said he is neither
a Democrat nor a Republican, said he doubted such experiments would stop
with embryos. "Eventually, somebody's going to take it to the next step,
to fetuses, then somebody's going to take it to full term. . . . It's already
scary."

Nearby, Dave Warren, 43, a systems
engineer from Westminster, said he thought the president had gone just
far enough.

"Medically, you need to do the research,"
he said. "But I'm opposed to raising embryos just to do it. I think it's
a responsible approach. There's too many paralyzed people that are depending
on a successful outcome.

"I think it was a responsible way
to go: Let the research continue, but stop short of farming embryos," he
said.

The debate went on across the country.

In New York, Sherry Power, a 53-year-old
teacher on vacation from Milwaukee, basked in the shade of St. Patrick's
Cathedral, and called Bush's announcement a "safe" solution."

"I think he was trying to please
everybody," she said.

"Being adopted, I have very personal
feelings about abortion," she said. "It could have been me. I have great
respect for the fact that life begins at conception."

But she said she had a close friend
who died of Lou Gehrig's disease. "It's such a terrible thing to watch,"
she said. "I have great empathy for people who are dealing with these illnesses
and have no cure and see this research as a beacon of light."

In Beverly Hills, Calif., one Bush
critic was more biting.

Richard Quinn, a 55-year-old screenwriter
who is disabled, argued that to let politics impede science was foolhardy.

"We've always been the leaders in
medical research," Quinn said. "So to put any constraints on it sounds
stupid."

In Washington, the Diabetes Research
and Wellness Foundation had mixed views about the president's stand.

"In diabetes, we know stem cell research
is going to be very important," foundation spokeswoman Kathy Gold said.
"We're disappointed, but at least [Bush] didn't say no totally. Hopefully,
with more work on this issue, we can expand their use. It's going to make
a big difference in what we can do in the future in finding a cure."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Stem cell
researchers and patients' advocates cautiously welcomed President Bush's
decision to allow federal funds for embryonic stem cell research but said
limits imposed on the work ultimately could ruin its promise for treating
a variety of diseases.

Bush said he would allow taxpayers'
money to be used on research involving stem cells harvested from live human
embryos.

But he also said that the stem cells
-- primitive master cells that can transform themselves into other cell
types -- would have to come from 60 existing lines. Each cell line is a
reservoir of stem cells derived from a single embryo.

Researchers Thursday questioned whether
60 cell lines existed and, since many are owned by private companies, whether
federally funded researchers would be able to use them. Government funding
allows researchers at universities to conduct work that previously limited
largely to private companies or academic scientists with corporate backing.

"Well, at least they're allowing
some federally funded work on human embryonic stem cells," Dr. Diane Krause,
a stem cell researcher at Yale University School of Medicine, said in an
interview.

But Krause said limiting the number
of stem cell lines with which federally funded researchers could work meant
there might not be sufficient genetic diversity in the cell reservoirs.

"GOOD ENOUGH FOR SOME PURPOSES"

"We need to see a variety of these
in order to fully understand the applications to multiple different diseases,"
Krause told Reuters. "It will be good enough for some purposes. But it
will be limited by its very nature of being a limited number of cell lines.
What we can do with them will be limited."

Dr. Neil Theise, a stem cell researcher
at New York University Medical Center, warned, "If this remains the decision
for the long term, I think it could significantly inhibit our ability to
get the sort of therapies that we're hoping for."

Dr. Douglas Melton, chairman of the
cellular and molecular biology department at Harvard University, said Thursday
that he had not been aware of as many stem cell lines as the president
said existed.

"The 60 cell lines is news to me,"
Melton said. "I presume that many of them must have been derived by private
institutes or companies, and whether they will be made available to (the
National Institutes of Health) for federally funded researchers without
restriction is an important question to ask."

Federal funds cannot be used to pay
for creating stem cell lines because U.S. law bars funding research that
harms a human embryo. The lines are thus largely in private hands, and
many experts had believed that far fewer than 60 existed, with estimates
ranging from fewer than a dozen to 30.

PIONEER IS "VERY PLEASED"

Dr. James Thomson, the University
of Wisconsin researcher who isolated the first human stem cells in 1998,
said in a statement Thursday: "I am very pleased that President Bush made
a decision that will allow human embryonic stem cell research to go forward.
The proposed compromise will slow the research, but the compromise is better
than halting the research entirely."

Paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve,
head of the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, which supports research
seeking a cure for paralysis, said in an interview, "I'm very pleased that
it wasn't a complete no, but I really think we must go further."

John Rogers, education and advocacy
director for the Parkinson's Action Network, said, "While we have concerns
about the number of lines, we're very pleased that the president has announced
that we're moving forward with the research, and we think it gives hope
to millions of Americans."

Stem cells are versatile primitive
cells with the ability to transform themselves into many other types of
cells, such as those found in the brain, heart, bones, muscles and skin.
Embryonic stem cells have been able to become virtually any cell type in
the body, while so-called adult stem cells, harbored in the bodies of adults
and children, have shown more limitations.

Scientists hope to harness the cells'
transformational powers to devise revolutionary treatments for a variety
of diseases, using stem cells to regenerate healthy tissue to replace tissue
damaged by disease or injury.

Washington -- Regardless of whether
stem-cell research moves forward with embryonic stem cells or adult stem
cells, with public or private funding, recent results have sparked enough
enthusiasm, controversy and debate to carry the field forward for a long
time.

If stem cells live up to their promise,
they could dramatically improve physicians' odds of defeating a long list
of serious conditions that include diabetes, Parkinson's disease, end-stage
kidney disease, liver failure, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, spinal
cord injury and stroke.

But, the promise of embryonic stem
cells is not only a long way from being realized, it is also tempered by
problematic ethical issues.

Meanwhile, the difficulties of working
with adult stem cells has dimmed researchers' zeal.

Still, the potential of stem-cell
research can be tantalizing.

"Over 3,000 people die every day
in the United States from diseases that may someday be treatable as a result
of stem-cell research," according to a report by the Progressive Policy
Institute, a Washington, D.C.,-based think tank.

While much of the recent interest
has been sparked by embryonic stem cells, which were first isolated from
embryos only three years ago, the momentum for research on adult stem cells,
which has been conducted for many years, has waned a bit.

Much remains unknown. "So far, adult
stem cells have proven to be very different from embryonic stem cells,"
ventures Tony Mazzaschi, associate vice president for research at the American
Assn. of Medical Colleges. He notes that the AAMC supports research on
both types of stem cells. The AMA also strongly supports all stem-cell
research, as do numerous other medical groups.

It isn't hard to find research success
stories.

Dramatic findings released in mid-July
by Johns Hopkins University researcher John Gearhart, MD, offered videotaped
proof that previously paralyzed mice and rats regained some ability to
use their legs after being injected with embryonic stem cells.

At about the same time, researchers
in London revealed that they had coaxed adult stem cells found in bone
marrow to develop as kidney cells.

The National Institutes of Health
released a report on July 18 that also cites the promise of both types
of stem-cell research.

All stem cells, whether derived from
adults, embryos or fetuses, can, under certain conditions, reproduce themselves
for long periods of time. They can also give rise to specialized cells
that make up the tissues and organs of the body.

Where the similarities end
Embryonic stem cells have certain
attributes that, so far at least, have not been found in adult stem cells.
For one thing, embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, whereas adult stem
cells are believed to have a more limited range.

In addition, "As far as we know,
[embryonic stem cells] can replace themselves forever, unlike adult stem
cells," said James Thompson, PhD, a developmental biologist at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison and one of the first two scientists to isolate stem
cells from human embryos. Dr. Thompson spoke at a National Academies of
Science workshop in June.

Dr. Thompson derives embryonic stem
cells from four- to five-day-old embryos called blastocysts, which are
donated by couples undergoing in vitro fertilization. The embryos, which
are destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells, are said to be extras
and destined to be destroyed in any case.

There appear to be only two sources
for human pluripotent stem cells: those isolated and cultured from early
human embryos and those cultured from fetal tissue destined to be part
of the gonads.

Dr. Gearhart, who takes honors with
Dr. Thompson as the other researcher to have isolated human embryonic stem
cells, uses the second approach to develop his stem cells, an approach
that, so far, seems to have escaped controversy.

However, the destruction of the early
stage embryos has sparked a strong debate over whether federal funding
should support such research. President George W. Bush was still struggling
with the issue at press time.

Congress is also divided on the issue.

But adult stem cells are free of
the current debate. And those that oppose the destruction of the blastocyst
in order to obtain embryonic stem cells gladly point to the successes of
adult stem-cell research and the need to continue.

Although they are found in many sites,
they are rare and difficult to identify, isolate and purify, notes the
NIH report.

But David Stevens, MD, executive
director of the Christian Medical Assn. and an opponent of embryonic stem-cell
research, believes the promise of adult stem-cell research is being unfairly
overlooked.

"Adult stem cells have been used
in rebuilding ears, tracheas in humans, and even have been used to regenerate
heart tissue in mice," he said.

As Dr. Stevens sees the debate, "If
we have two paths of promising research and one has ethical issues and
the other does not, which one should we pursue? It seems to me we should
pursue the one without the ethical problems."

He also points out potential difficulties
with embryonic stem cells. "The biggest benefit of embryonic stem cells
is that they can differentiate into so many different types of cells. But
that's their biggest problem, too. How do you direct them?"

A federal ban on research would mean
the NIH, the lead supporter of biomedical research, and an agency currently
enjoying an increased funding level, would be prohibited from supporting
embryonic stem-cell research. Privately funded research could continue,
but outside the sphere of NIH guidelines, leading some to fear that research
standards would suffer.

The funding debate has dragged on
for many months now. In January, the AMA joined with more than 100 other
medical groups in urging the president to release funding. The groups said,
"Given the great hope that stem-cell research provides to those who are
suffering or dying from devastating illnesses, we urge you to allow this
research to move forward with federal support."

Stand on
Embryo Research Separates LDS Senators From Traditional Allies

Debate in the U.S. Senate over federal
funding of embryonic stem cell research reveals a deep divide in personal
religious beliefs and the theology of when life begins.

The five senators who are members
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all have come out in
favor of spending federal money to study whether cells taken from embryos
in the first stages of development can be used to cure such problems as
heart disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer and
diabetes.

The Mormon senators' stand is controversial
because the collection of these cells would require the destruction of
excess embryos produced at fertility clinics.

Since most of the Mormon senators
strongly oppose abortion in all but a few circumstances, their decision
underscores that LDS theology is unclear on whether an embryo created in
the laboratory through in vitro fertilization is a living being.

The senators are leaning toward --
and sometimes coming right out and saying -- that these embryos are not
yet truly alive.

"While I understand that many in
the pro-life community will disagree with me, I believe that human life
begins in the womb, not a petri dish or refrigerator," Sen. Orrin Hatch,
R-Utah, said at a Senate hearing last month.

That position has separated the Mormons
from traditional conservative allies in the Senate who consider the destruction
of an embryo no different from aborting a developing fetus. By aligning
with their more liberal colleagues, the Mormon senators have joined a coalition
of two-thirds of the Senate who now support federal funding for the research
-- enough to override a potential presidential veto.

The Mormon senators "have helped
move the debate away from right-to-life absolutism without sacrificing
pro-life theology. The LDS Church, not the Vatican, is playing the pivotal
role in the struggle over stem cells," according to an analysis by Drew
Clark in the Aug. 2 edition of Slate Magazine.

Central to the Senate debate is the
question of when life begins.

The LDS Church has been clear about
its opposition to abortion in all but rare cases "involving pregnancy by
incest or rape; when the life or health of the woman is adjudged by competent
medical authority to be in serious jeopardy; or when the fetus is known
by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow
the baby to survive beyond birth."

No Guidance: But Mormon leaders have
provided no guidance on exactly when life begins.

"There is no direct revelation upon
the subject of when the spirit enters the body," church spokesman Dale
Bills said this week.

Mormon theology holds that people
existed as "spirit children" of God prior to receiving an earthly body.
Thus, there is some point where the spirit unites with the physical body
to create life.

In the church's scriptural Doctrine
& Covenants, there is a passage that reads: "And the spirit and the
body are the soul of man."

Church leaders have not said whether
this joining of spirit and body occurs at conception or sometime later
in the development of the fetus.

On the issue of embryonic stem cell
research, LDS Church leaders issued a statement last month saying they
had no position but added the idea "merits cautious scrutiny."

That left the Mormon senators free
to explore their personal beliefs on the issue, and to balance the possible
health benefits of the research against the moral quandary of destroying
embryos.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., a Mormon,
offered his view that laboratory-produced embryos are no more than the
"dust of the earth" that lack the spark of life until they are implanted
in the mother's womb.

"They are essential to life, but
standing alone, will never constitute life," Smith said at a Senate hearing.
"A stem cell in a petri dish or frozen in a refrigerator will never, even
in 100 years, become more than stem cells. They lack the breath of life.
I believe that life begins in a mother's womb, not in a scientist's laboratory."

Collision Course: Such views clash
head-on with the beliefs of Catholics and many Jews. Owen Cummings, who
tutors new deacons for the Utah diocese of the Catholic Church, said the
church's position on this issue has been consistent since at least the
1300s.

"Life begins when life begins, and
that is at the moment when an ovum is fertilized with a sperm," said Cummings.
"We are not left with the concept that something is there which might become
a person, but a person is there in the process of becoming."

Catholics have no objection to research
using stem cells collected from the placenta, umbilical cord or from adults,
Cummings said, but the embryo is "sacred" and must not be destroyed.

Many Jews also believe life begins
when the egg is fertilized, said J. David Bleich, a rabbi and professor
of Jewish law and ethics at Yeshiva University in New York City.

Bleich acknowledged there is debate
among Jewish scholars over whether the soul enters the embryo at the moment
of fertilization or 40 days later.

"If it is 40 days, no one can object
if you kill [the embryo] for a good purpose," he said. "But the weight
of authority, I contend, is that all of this happens at the moment of conception,
in which case you have a problem."

The rabbi said the federal government
should not finance work in which embryos are destroyed to collect stem
cells.

"The government has no business funding
things that are morally offensive to huge sectors of society," he said.

But if stem cells are collected through
privately funded work from excess embryos at fertility clinics, he said
their use should be allowed in government-funded research.

"If you have a homicide victim and
want to salvage organs, no one is going to be opposed," the rabbi said.
"Does that mean I've condoned the act of homicide? No."

The excess embryos awaiting destruction
are like those homicide victims, he said. He does not condone their destruction
and contends the federal government should not support it. But since they
are going to be destroyed anyway, Bleich said federal funding should be
available to study the stem cells that are "harvested."

In a recent letter to the secretary
of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, Hatch said that he understands
and respects those who believe that destruction of excess embryos is akin
to abortion. But he disagrees.

"To me, a frozen embryo is more akin
to a frozen unfertilized egg or frozen sperm than to a fetus naturally
developing in the body of a mother," he wrote. "In the case of in vitro
fertilization, extraordinary human action is required to initiate a successful
pregnancy while in the case of an elective abortion an intentional human
act is required to terminate pregnancy. These are polar opposites."

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- For stem-cell
scientists, President Bush just popped the lid off of a $17 billion treasure
chest that had been locked to them.

The president's approval of limited
funding for stem-cell research will unleash scores of proposals to the
nation's largest single source of medical research, the huge grants budget
of the National Institutes of Health, scientists said on Thursday.

"This will push us forward on many,
many fronts," said W. Dalton Dietrich, scientific director of the Miami
Project to Cure Paralysis, who oversees several stem-cell projects.

"We would like to say that one day
we'll be able to take these cells, put them in a petri dish with some chemical
growth factors and be able to control what they turn into," he said.

On the flip side, it may turn out
that the body rejects the implanted stem cells. Or, the new cells could
grow too fast and create tumors.

The cells are derived from five-
to 10-day-old embryos made in fertility labs to implant in prospective
mothers. Privately funded research currently takes unused embryos, which
are routinely discarded, for study. Once created, the tiny balls of cells
divide almost indefinitely so labs have a big supply.

Stem cells were first isolated in
1998, but a 1995 law banned federal funding for any research that "destroyed,
discarded or knowingly subjected to risk" any human fetus, no matter how
microscopic.

In his compromise decision, Bush
imposed two key restrictions. First, all stem cells used for research must
come from embryos originally created for fertility treatment. Second, researchers
must use stem cell lines cultured from 60 embryos that already have been
killed by privately funded researchers.

"I'm quite happy. That would be acceptable
to any reasonable researcher," said Dr. Luca Inverardi, co-director of
the cell transplant center at the University of Miami's Diabetes Research
Institute.

The NIH is expected to require labs
that presently have the stem cells to either sell or share them with other
researchers, possibly as a condition of their federal funding, Inverardi
said.

Inverardi's lab -- now growing to
five scientists -- has been studying how to convert mouse stem cells into
replacements for faulty pancreas tissues that cause diabetes. Three teams
have succeeded in doing so, one in Israel using human cells.

With NIH dollars available, Inverardi
anticipates landing as much as $4 million over the next 10 years to work
on human stem cells.

The spinal cord lab that Dietrich
oversees also has been studying mouse cells, and will go after NIH grants
to begin work on human cells.

The goal: Creating new nerves that
could grow across broken spinal cords to eliminate paralysis. Groups elsewhere
are trying this in humans using private funds, he said. Harvard doctors
reported they "cured" Parkinson's in rats.

Signs of progress abound. An Israeli
team coaxed embryo stem cells to grow into heart muscle. A privately funded
team created nerve cells that repaired the brains of monkey fetuses.

Last year, the NIH gave $256 million
to researchers studying adult cells, a non-controversial area using tissue
derived from patients.

After Bush's action, it's unclear
how big a slice of the NIH's $17 billion budget would go for embryo stem-cell
work. NIH scientists award grants to studies they deem to be the most promising,
regardless of subject matter, spokesman Don Ralbovsky said. Competition
is fierce, and the evaluations will be deliberate.

"The first checks would not be cut
until early in the new year," Ralbovsky said.

The prospect of big dollars for stem-cell
projects excited advocacy groups for diseases that stand to benefit from
the research.

"We see lots of promise," said Jerry
Franz, a spokesman for the American Diabetes Association. "People with
diabetes are often promised more than what actually is delivered. But it
offers hope and we want to be supportive of offering hope."

"I'm no scientist," said Alison Landes
of Boca Raton, Fla., who started the group Cure Parkinson's Inc. after
her sister was diagnosed with the incurable brain disorder. "It seems too
promising to turn away. Maybe people wouldn't have to take drugs, which
don't work forever and are not a cure."

Researchers and disease groups had
feared that Bush would continue the ban on federal funds for stem-cell
work, because of pressure from those with ethical or religious objections
to using embryos.

A rejection likely would have driven
some of the limited number of U.S. embryo researchers to other countries
that support it, Inverardi said.

U.S. drugmakers and biotechnology
firms, which generally supported Bush, favored the federal funding.

Madison - Though stem cell research
might hold a cure for her, Mary Lynn Bielinski of Brookfield said Thursday
she would rather endure multiple sclerosis than live, knowing the cure
involved destruction of embryos.

Seated in a wheelchair during a Capitol
news conference, Bielinski voiced support for a bill to prohibit the creation
and destruction of embryonic cells for research. She said she realized
such research one day might enable multiple sclerosis sufferers like her
to walk again.

"But if babies are going to be lost
in the process, no thank you, I'd rather just stay the way I am," Bielinski
said.

"I'm totally against any kind of
stem cell research that would take these little - I call them babies,"
she said. "After all, a seed is going to grow into a mighty oak, just as
these embryos, if allowed to grow, will become babies."

Bielinski, 61, who was diagnosed
with multiple sclerosis in 1979, said that when people suffer a miscarriage,
they grieve over the loss of their child.

"And I would grieve terribly over
the loss of these babies if this stem cell research is allowed to continue,"
she said.

Bielinski joined Rep. Steve Freese
(R-Dodgeville) and Barbara Lyons of Wisconsin Right to Life at the news
conference to announce the legislation.

Freese said the bill he and Sen.
Bob Welch (R-Redgranite) would introduce within a week was more comprehensive
than the stem cell research ban proposed by Assembly Republicans during
budget negotiations but later rejected.

Freese said the bill would allow
research on adult stem cells, but not cells taken from embryos 6 to 8 days
old. The University of Wisconsin-Madison has been the leading research
institution on embryonic stem cells. Freese said UW researchers should
work on adult stem cells, not embryonic cells.

Freese said the bill would make the
intentional destruction of a living human embryo a crime. Anyone providing
researchers a human embryo, knowing it would be destroyed, also could be
prosecuted, he said.

The legislation also would prohibit
cloning. Finally, it would call for a legislative council study on ways
to regulate infertility clinics and the production of embryos, and to facilitate
adoption of spare embryos.

In an opening statement, Freese talked
about the medical experiments the Nazis conducted during the Holocaust
and the United States' Tuskegee experiment, in which the U.S. Public Health
Service withheld penicillin and watched poor, uneducated African-American
men die of syphilis.

In drawing the comparisons, Freese
said later, he was only attempting to illustrate a need to understand the
consequences of research and have controls in place.

Freese said 11 other states, including
Minnesota and Michigan, prohibit experiments on human embryos outside a
woman's body. He acknowledged the bill would face strong opposition in
the Senate, controlled by Democrats. UW officials also oppose the measure.

Another opponent, Rep. Sheldon Wasserman
(D-Milwaukee), said embryonic stem cells hold the most promise for cures
and that prohibiting such research would prolong suffering and cost lives.

"I think we have to protect people
who are dying and suffering from these horrible diseases. Don't they have
a voice?" said Wasserman, a practicing physician.

If people want no part of such research
because their religious convictions, that is their choice to make, Wasserman
said. But he said they should not deny others the benefits of such research.

C R A W F O R D, Texas, Aug. 9 -
Following is a transcript of President Bush's first nationally televised
address to the nation. In his speech, Bush announces his support for very
limited federal funding of research using stem cells derived from human
embryos.

Good evening. I appreciate you giving
me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex
and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time.

The issue of research involving stem
cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national
debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day
in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their
work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have
children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within
the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith,
coming to different conclusions.

Many people are finding that the
more they know about stem-cell research, the less certain they are about
the right ethical and moral conclusions.

My administration must decide whether
to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research
on stem cells derived from human embryos.

A large number of these embryos already
exist. They are the product of a process called in-vitro fertilization
which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm
and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos
than are implanted in the mother.

Once a couple successfully has children,
or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories.
Some will not survive during long storage, others are destroyed. A number
have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell
lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born and
are today healthy children.

Based on preliminary work that has
been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells
offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer
from many terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from
Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are
not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique
potential.

You should also know that stem cells
can be derived from sources other than embryos: from adult cells, from
umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placentas.
And many scientists feel research on these types of stem cells is also
promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already
being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

However, most scientists, at least
today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise
because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues
in the body.

Scientists further believe that rapid
progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars
help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries
are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities, and that
the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

The United States has a long and
proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine
that improve human life, and the United States has a long and proud record
of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of
science and knowledge.

Research on embryonic stem cells
raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys
the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life.

Like a snowflake, each of these embryos
is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.

As I thought through this issue I
kept returning to two fundamental questions. First, are these frozen embryos
human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second,
if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater
good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others
of scientists, scholars, bio-ethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers,
members of Congress, my Cabinet and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters
from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer,
and considerable reflection, and I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos
human life? Well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old
cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual but a pre-embryo.
He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because
it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous
attempt at rationalization. "Make no mistake," he told me, "that cluster
of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our
lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these," he said, "because
we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation."

And to the other crucial question
- If these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good
purpose? - I also found different answers.

Many are these embryos are byproducts
of a process that helps create life and we should allow couples to donate
them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting
their potential.

Others will argue there is no such
thing as excess life and the fact that a living being is going to die does
not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us
to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the
ends of science. It lives at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing
the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving
and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science
create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields.

As the genius of science extends
the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions
about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed
so distant in 1932 when Alduous Huxley wrote about human beings created
in test tubes in what he called a hatchery.

In recent weeks, we learned that
scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment
on them. This is deeply troubling and a warning sign that should prompt
all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem-cell research is at
the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem-cell researcher
was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used
for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers
are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual
designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in
case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning,
as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for
spare body parts or creating life for our convenience.

And while we must devote enormous
energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention
to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell
research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped
by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology,
and believe they have the potential for incredible good - to improve lives,
to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of
our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I
have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan
has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own
family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all Americans,
I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred
gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and
believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and
encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.

And while we're all hopeful about
the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science
will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed
fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet
the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic
stem-cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have
decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research,
more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were
created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the
ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities
for research.

I have concluded that we should allow
federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines,
where the life-and- death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research
on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies
and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem-cell
research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer
funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos
that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific
progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on
umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve
the same moral dilemma. This year your government will spent $250 million
on this important research.

I will also name a president's council
to monitor stem-cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and
regulations and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications
of bio-medical innovation.

This council will consist of leading
scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will
be chaired by Dr. Leon Cass, a leading bio-medical ethicist from the University
of Chicago.

This council will keep us apprised
of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss
and evaluate these important issues.

As we go forward, I hope we will
always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities
and our conscience.

I have made this decision with great
care, and I pray it is the right one.